Would it Physically Impossible to Load Up Noah's Arc?

[eugenius]

It didn't --it metaphorically saved them during a symbolic "flood". The old world (of understanding) that was washed away allowed a new one to arise from the depths.

Oh so the flood never happened, I get it now.

And there was no Ark.

Damnit.

 

[Willamena]

There was a flood (and still is) --a world getting "washed away". It happened to me. There was an Ark (and still is) --a vessel on which to rest while the world changes. Mine was a door step. There was a 'saving' (and still is). Myths represent things that happen to us, mankind, every moment of every day.

 

[3.14]

and how did that physically save them during a global flood?

Perspective and understanding can't teach a T-Rex to swim can it?

 

[eugenius]

There was a flood (and still is) --a world getting "washed away". It happened to me. There was an Ark (and still is) --a vessel on which to rest while the world changes. Mine was a door step. There was a 'saving' (and still is). Myths represent things that happen to us, mankind, every moment of every day.

yah but you're saying it's a myth and many think it really happened.

I'm tired of myths, me want facts!

 

[eugenius]

I think that is excellent art and maybe that is what happened!?!

 

[Rakhel]

Understand that the at that time Noah's world was a far away as he could get to physically. Basically, Asia minor. So it was not hard for him to gather animals 2 pair of the clean animals or 7 of the unclean(I'm still lost on how he knew the difference, but oh well). Noah wasn't concerned with animals in Europe, Africa, or the Americas, because he didn't know they existed.
We, the later generations, are the ones who have said it was the whole world without understanding ancient mans' mind.

 

[eugenius]

Understand that the at that time Noah's world was a far away as he could get to physically. Basically, Asia minor. So it was not hard for him to gather animals 2 pair of the clean animals or 7 of the unclean(I'm still lost on how he knew the difference, but oh well). Noah wasn't concerned with animals in Europe, Africa, or the Americas, because he didn't know they existed.
We, the later generations, are the ones who have said it was the whole world without understanding ancient mans' mind.

Ok I see, so how did the animals in these gigantic regions survive the flood?

 

[Rakhel]

I don't know. I wasn't there. Norse mythology as their version as does Roman and Chinese. The Native American Tribes of North America also have a version. I haven't studied their versions well enough to give you a definite answer

 

[fantome profane]

yah but you're saying it's a myth and many think it really happened.

I'm tired of myths, me want facts!

Those who insist on a literal interpretation of myth tend to miss the point, and that applies equally to those who accept the myth and to those who reject it.

I happen to agree with you that the physics of the Noah story are absolutely ridiculous. But if you stop there you will have gotten nothing from this story, you will have missed the point. Just as those who believe it literally happened have missed the point.

I think Willamena’s posts in this thread have been absolutely brilliant.

 

[eugenius]

Those who insist on a literal interpretation of myth tend to miss the point, and that applies equally to those who accept the myth and to those who reject it.

I happen to agree with you that the physics of the Noah story are absolutely ridiculous. But if you stop there you will have gotten nothing from this story, you will have missed the point. Just as those who believe it literally happened have missed the point.

I think Willamena’s posts in this thread have been absolutely brilliant.

Ok

But if that's true, what else is false, mythic, or real? Do you just pick a verse or book and interpret to what they think is right? I'm confused.

I can read childrens stories chalked full of morals instead can't I?

 

[J Bryson]

Those who insist on a literal interpretation of myth tend to miss the point, and that applies equally to those who accept the myth and to those who reject it.

I happen to agree with you that the physics of the Noah story are absolutely ridiculous. But if you stop there you will have gotten nothing from this story, you will have missed the point. Just as those who believe it literally happened have missed the point.

I think Willamena’s posts in this thread have been absolutely brilliant.

Agreed on all counts.

I don't have to literally think that there was a young man named Huckleberry Finn who helped a slave escape down the Mississippi in order to appreciate the messages of friendship, redemption, self-sacrifice, and being true to one's own integrity contained in that book.

Neither do I have to take the Bible literally in order to appreciate the words and thoughts of human beings who were doing the best that they could to make sense out of the mysteries of existence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I happen to agree with you that the physics of the Noah story are absolutely ridiculous. But if you stop there you will have gotten nothing from this story, you will have missed the point. Just as those who believe it literally happened have missed the point.

I don't really think there's anything all that profound to get from the story, literal or not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

2 of every species on one boat would be a logistical nightmare and would take decades to scour the earth and capture, feed, cultivate the millions of species on earth. Even today, with all the resources at hand, it would be impossible to achieve without many of them dying.

Not two of each animal, two of each "unclean" animal, and seven of each "clean" animal. (This in light of the fact that Moses had yet to be born to tell anyone what was clean and what was unclean.)

Now to logistics, the Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. It thus has a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. It therefore had a displacement of 1,518,750 divided by 100 = 15,187.5 tons. (tonnage calculations)
15,187.5 tons of space is available on the Ark before it sinks. Let's first consider the weight of the creatures aboard themselves. While we can argue about what "Kind" means, we'll use the Creationist number of 16,000 animals.
16,000 x 763 = 12,208,000 lbs 12,208,000 pounds divided by 2000 (pounds per ton) = 6,104 tons.
15,187.5 - 6,140 = 9,047.5 tons left for food to feed these beasts.
Lets see what we have now. A tonnage capacity of 15,187.5
(Less) Biomass weight = 6,140
(Less) Food stores weight = 75,498.5 (1/30th of each animals body weight per day.)
Equals -66,451 Tons.
Well, The Ark is sunk, and we haven't even addressed fresh water yet. Likewise, we haven't considered that the Earth was destroyed of all life, and these creatures - once offloaded, would not have anything to eat until the Earth repopulated itself with plants, thus Noah would have needed even more food with him.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't really think there's anything all that profound to get from the story, literal or not.

Your inability to appreciate this story is your loss. There are those who don’t like Mark Twain either. You can choose whatever stories you wish to help you understand your life.

 

[eugenius]

Agreed on all counts.

I don't have to literally think that there was a young man named Huckleberry Finn who helped a slave escape down the Mississippi in order to appreciate the messages of friendship, redemption, self-sacrifice, and being true to one's own integrity contained in that book.

Neither do I have to take the Bible literally in order to appreciate the words and thoughts of human beings who were doing the best that they could to make sense out of the mysteries of existence.

So Huckleberry Finn is no different than the bible really, except shorter and more realistic?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Logistics aside, I can find no redeeming value in a story where innocent animals and children are drowned.
The salvation of Noah and his family was also a death sentence to all other living beings.

 

[J Bryson]

So Huckleberry Finn is no different than the bible really, except shorter and more realistic?

It's in the eye of the beholder. Some get more from Twain, others from two- and three-thousand year old legends. I think that the Bible is more diverse in terms of messages and profundity, but I do agree that since we don't have to listen to the genealogy of the Finn family for countless generations, it is more concise.

 

[Rakhel]

Not two of each animal, two of each "unclean" animal, and seven of each "clean" animal. (This in light of the fact that Moses had yet to be born to tell anyone what was clean and what was unclean.)

thank you for the correction.

 

[Willamena]

Logistics aside, I can find no redeeming value in a story where innocent animals and children are drowned.

I know what you mean. I always hated that one about the baby in the cradle in the tree. And then the wind blows.... *shutters* Gives me the willies.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You can choose whatever stories you wish to help you understand your life.

True enough. I find the bible stories a little too simplistic to offer me anything meaningful. I found them interesting in second grade, but my life and worldview have gotten substantially more complex since then. To each his own, I guess.